Quotes: Christine O’Donnell Debates Chris Coons

  • Share
  • Read Later
Delaware Senate Candidate Christine O'Donnell Wins Republican Primary

Mark Wilson / Getty Images

“You’re just jealous you weren’t on Saturday Night Live.”

— CHRISTINE O’DONNELL, Republican candidate for Delaware Senate, debating her opponent, Democrat Chris Coons, who blamed the national media for placing too much of a spotlight on her past statements and actions (via Washington Post)


Terrific. Something else for everyone to fight over. I'm not advocating for ignorance -- I'm just saying that the energy devoted to telling the other guy why they're so stupid and self-deceived could better be used to make real and lasting changes now. We can have all the books of knowledge at our disposal...The Origin Of Species, The Bible, or Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica...but we can't stop beating each other to death with them.


SCIENCE SHOWS THAT THE UNIVERSE CANNOT BE ETERNAL because it could not have sustained itself eternally due to the law of entropy (increasing net energy decay, even in an open system). Einstein showed that space, matter, and time all are physical and all had a beginning. Space even produces particles because it’s actually something, not nothing. Even time had a beginning! Time is not eternal.

The law of entropy doesn't allow the universe to be eternal. If the universe were eternal, everything, including time (which modern science has shown is as physical as mass and space), would have become totally entropied by now and the entire universe would have ended in a uniform heat death a long, long time ago. The fact that this hasn't happened already is powerful evidence for a beginning to the universe.

Popular atheistic scientist Stephen Hawking admits that the universe had a beginning and came from nothing but he believes that nothing became something by a natural process yet to be discovered. That's not rational thinking at all, and it also would be making the effect greater than its cause to say that nothing created something. The beginning had to be of supernatural origin because natural laws and processes do not have the ability to bring something into existence from nothing. What about the Higgs boson (the so-called “God Particle”)? The Higgs boson does not create mass from nothing, but rather it converts energy into mass. Einstein showed that all matter is some form of energy.

The supernatural cannot be proved by science but science points to a supernatural intelligence and power for the origin and order of the universe. Where did God come from? Obviously, unlike the universe, God’s nature doesn’t require a beginning.
EXPLAINING HOW AN AIRPLANE WORKS doesn't mean no one made the airplane. Explaining how life or the universe works doesn't mean there was no Maker behind them. Natural laws may explain how the order in the universe works and operates, but mere undirected natural laws cannot explain the origin of that order. Once you have a complete and living cell then the genetic code and biological machinery exist to direct the formation of more cells, but how could life or the cell have naturally originated when no directing code and mechanisms existed in nature? Read my Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM.

WHAT IS SCIENCE? Science simply is knowledge based on observation. No one observed the universe coming by chance or by design, by creation or by evolution. These are positions of faith. The issue is which faith the scientific evidence best supports.

Some things don’t need experiment or scientific proof. In law there is a dictum called prima facie evidence. It means “evidence that speaks for itself.”  

An example of a true prima facie would be if you discovered an elaborate sand castle on the beach. You don’t have to experiment to know that it came by design and not by the chance forces of wind and water.

If you discovered a romantic letter or message written in the sand, you don’t have to experiment to know that it was by design and not because a stick randomly carried by wind put it there. You naturally assume that an intelligent and rational being was responsible.

I encourage all to read my popular Internet articles: NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION and HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM

Visit my newest Internet site: THE SCIENCE SUPPORTING CREATION

Babu G. Ranganathan*
(B.A. Bible/Biology)


*I have given successful lectures (with question and answer period afterwards) defending creation before evolutionist science faculty and students at various colleges and universities. I've been privileged to be recognized in the 24th edition of Marquis "Who's Who in The East" for my writings on religion and science.


So, along with this cosmic inflation, which is the probability that within a galaxy like the milky way, from the dust of its exploded stars, the living being who uses a computer was formed - computer included? A favourable case among infinite unfavourable possibilities? Fifty-fifty? To be or not to be, is that the question? Or is it a zero followed by a radix point and an infinite amount of zeros behind, but finishing with a one emerging from error or compassion when rounding up? Are calculations simplified or made more complex when the subjective self of each one is the entity that is studied? Anyway , what is the relationship between life and immense numbers? Is life a folding process of infinity? Is it just something infinite that would have enough to allow a self, something isolated but of infinite claims? But, is infinity credible within something with a beginning, out of a Big Bang? And is it credible within something with an ending, with the inevitable death around the corner? Along these lines, there is a peculiar book, a preview in http://goo.gl/rfVqw6 Just another mind leisure suggestion, far away from dogmas or axioms.


@BabuG.Ranganathan  You cant even formulate a logical response to this new discovery can you? Yet again you just cut and paste your tired old BS. How about you take into this new data and type something interesting. Seriously can some one report you as a BOT? You certainly act like one.



If there is a book that is in any way "along these lines" of the nonsense you posted, it's probably written in crayon by someone who has done way too many mind-altering drugs in their time.

The answers to your questions, in order, are: 

  1. No, man invented the computer, not the universe. Evolution formed living beings from proteins which are made up of simple elements, not dust.
  2. This process happens regardless of circumstances provided all of the elements are present in sufficient quantity and circumstances, so yes, the circumstances have to be "favorable", which is to say brought together in such a way that the chemical processes inherent in these elements can begin.  
  3. The third question is just hyperbole and it's 100% not 50/50.  
  4. The fourth question is from Shakespeare's Hamlet and is derived from ignorance and a lack of willingness to be freed from that condition.  
  5. The fifth question is the same as the fourth question and is irrational to boot.
  6. The sixth question again is irrational.  If a study can't be reduced to some kind of math, and reproduced by others, it's a study of something that isn't real. 
  7. There is no definable relationship between life and immense numbers.  Numbers are an invention of a thinking creature.  Life exists, indeed existed, long before numbers ever did.
  8. Life is the inevitable accident of favorable circumstances.  What shape it takes depends on the environment in which it grows and evolves.
  9. This question has no subject therefore no answer, and is irrational to boot.
  10. Infinity is a concept, not a thing.  The universe has an "end", but no one can ever get there unless we can travel faster than light for a hell of a long time.
  11. Again, infinity is a concept, not a thing and whatever is "credible" has nothing to do with death.  The question is irrational.

In your attempt to sound existential, you merely made yourself look like you understood nothing of what was said in the article, and pretty much nothing of what is going on in life, either.  Lay off the acid.  Try college, instead.


@DeweySayenoff @Ulises_Jofre  Annd you kinda came off as a jerk? I agree the OP is a tad out there but still.

The computers we created are in fact a part of this universe, as another part of the universe, humans, created them. One can say that we are indeed the universe trying to understand itself as we are a part of it. Technically if you actually do play the numbers game, you have no free will and we are simply the end result of physics making its course.  I don't like to think that myself its kinda creepy. 

The OP is quoting Carl Sagan when he speaks of star dust, Star dust = simple elements created and thrown off in supernova. You are just nitpicking to try and sound smart and merely made yourself look like you understand nothing of the wonder that is our universe. Take a look into string theory, the whole multiverse concept might give you another perspective on what infinity is and how improbable the laws of physics are just so that the universe formed and developed as it is and allowed us to come into being. Yes Infinity is a concept, but it literally does exist according to string theory.